| Literature DB >> 31118585 |
Francesca Zotti1, Rinaldo Zotti2, Massimo Albanese1, Pier Francesco Nocini1, Corrado Paganelli2.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether the use of social media is useful in improving compliance and follow-up attendance among patients wearing retainers after orthodontic treatment. Patients and methods: Sixty post-orthodontic patients (aged 16-19 years), randomized in two groups: follow-up supported by participation in WhatsApp chat group (SG), and Control Group (CG). All patients were scheduled for quarterly check-ups for monitoring of orthodontic stability by measurement of intercanine width at the beginning of the study (t0) and every 4 months t1, t2, t3) for 1 year of observation. Patients in the SG additionally participated in a WhatsApp chat group, where they would send, on a weekly basis, snapshots showing his/her occlusion. Every month, the orthodontist acting as the moderator awarded the best five snapshots by publishing a ranking in the chat.Entities:
Keywords: apps; orthodontic compliance; orthodontics relapse; patient compliance; technologies; young patients
Year: 2019 PMID: 31118585 PMCID: PMC6498955 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S200822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
Figure 1Patients allocation flow-chart.
Abbreviations: CG, control group; SG, study group.
Demographic variables
| Variable | SG (n=30) | CG (n=30) |
|---|---|---|
| Female, n | 20 | 16 |
| Age, years mean (±SD) | 17.2 (±1.03) | 17.8 (±1.06) |
| Caucasian (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Intercanine width (mm) (±SD) | 25.34 (±0.33) | 25.84 (±1.76) |
Abbreviations: CG, control group; N, overall number of patients per group; SG, study group.
Intra-group differences in intercanine width (Friedman test)
| CG | ||
|---|---|---|
| Delta 0–1 | Delta 1–2 | Delta 2–3 |
| *** | *** | *** |
| SG | ||
| Delta 0–1 | Delta 1–2 | Delta 2–3 |
| *** | *** | *** |
Notes: t0=at baseline; t1=after 4 months; t2=after 8 months; t3=after 12 months. Delta 0–1=difference between t0 and t1, Delta 1–2=difference between t1 and t2, Delta 2–3=difference between t2 and t3, ***P<0.001.
Abbreviations: CG, control group; SG, study group.
Inter-groups differences in intercanine width (Mann-Whitney test)
| SG vs CG | |
|---|---|
| Delta 0–1 | *** |
| Delta 1–2 | *** |
| Delta 2–3 | *** |
Notes: t0=at baseline; t1=after 4 months; t2=after 8 months; t3=after 12 months. Delta0–1=difference between t0 and t1, Delta1–2=difference between t1 and t2, Delta2–3=difference between t2 and t3, ***P<0.001.
Abbreviations: CG, control group; SG, study group.
Mean (mm) and SD of intercanine width decrease at different Delta
| CG | SG | |
|---|---|---|
| Delta 0–1 | 0.097 (0.096) | 0.017 (0.042) |
| Delta 1–2 | 0.795 (0.249) | 0.133 (0.087) |
| Delta 2–3 | 0.412* (0.418*) | 0.177 (0.084) |
Notes: t0=at baseline; t1=after 4 months; t2=after 8 months; t3=after 12 months. Delta 0–1=difference between t0 and t1, Delta 1–2=difference between t1 and t2, Delta 2–3=difference between t2 and t3, *values calculated on 22 patients.
Abbreviations: CG, control group; SG, study group.